Devialet - use of its phono stage
- Thread starter docvale
- Start date
The answer to your questions will be also determined by the type of music you mainly listen and your current speakers. Can we know them?
I mostly listen to classics of rock and progressive.
Respectfully, though, I think that a good performing system should behave good regardless the music style. I'd rather be concerned with the speaker design with regards to the music genres...
IMHO you have to think of a system as an whole - both the amplifier and speakers should match your musical preferences. If you listening in an apartment (perhaps not your case) you will not be able to listen at the loudness needed for full immersion in the classics of rock and progressive. Than you will need an amplifier that highlights the rhythm and fluidity of music, showing the tunes inside the music. Curiously I have found that the DartZeeel integrated was much more adequated to this type of music than the Devialet. Surely YMMV, you should listen to it!
It should be noted that I only had the Devialet Premier and the DartZeel in my system - the new Devialets were only auditioned at dealer auditoriums.
BTW, if I only listened to Piano Concertos I would own a Devialet - it sounds really great with this type of music.
undrlying this discussion of the Devialet is the notion of price and how it can afford great music to audiophiles. Jeff Fritz heard the DeVialet in his system with the $185,000 Magico Q7 and he did try these speakers with a number of celebrated amps including the celebrated Vitus in this case in bi-amping mode. In his opinion the DeVialet with the SAM exceeded all these amps and certainly preamps combo. That says something about the intrinsic qualities of this appliance which happens to be a DAC and an ADC plus an integrated amp. That it cost what it cost while offering this level of performance is refreshing. The darn things is a great piece of equipment and is competitive with costlier components.
There is also the fact that its designer have embraced digital wholeheartedly. It makes no excuses or pay down that it is a digital product. You either take it or not. It is also time to accept that some find digital satisfying and they don't need to make excuse for it as if it ia second class citizen. Digital is a diferent way of storing a performance it is for many and that include I, as good or superior to analog. Some have a different opinion that is OK s long as we don't paint our opinion or ourselves as the final word or arbiters of what sounds good.
All and all a game changer. It is spurning a whole new category. Dar Tzeel has its own integrated and so do Wadia, Playback Design, etc.Finally some progress and sanity in this race toward ever higher prices. Something audiophiles have accepted as an element of the landscape. Something endemic to Luxury Good sector where mo' money is always perceived as better ...
There is also the fact that its designer have embraced digital wholeheartedly. It makes no excuses or pay down that it is a digital product. You either take it or not. It is also time to accept that some find digital satisfying and they don't need to make excuse for it as if it ia second class citizen. Digital is a diferent way of storing a performance it is for many and that include I, as good or superior to analog. Some have a different opinion that is OK s long as we don't paint our opinion or ourselves as the final word or arbiters of what sounds good.
All and all a game changer. It is spurning a whole new category. Dar Tzeel has its own integrated and so do Wadia, Playback Design, etc.Finally some progress and sanity in this race toward ever higher prices. Something audiophiles have accepted as an element of the landscape. Something endemic to Luxury Good sector where mo' money is always perceived as better ...
Sometimes what one thinks should be the case isn't and vice versa. My previous exposure to Class D amps (it was a TACT unit) left me running for cover. But an extended audition of a single Devialet D Premier to a ARC Ref3/110 combo (over 2 weeks in the comfort of my home) left me in no doubt which sound i preferred.
Dropping the ARC Ref 2 phono stage was not as clear cut - the Ref 2 is a magical box - but the proof is in the pudding - i still listen to a lot of music i have on vinyl via the Devialet phono stage - awash in musical bliss
Anybody who believes that there is something inherently wrong with digital is unlikely to be persuaded away from that view by a newbie like me posting, so for them, stop reading now...
I have extensive experience of making both analogue and digital recordings of both music (as an amateur recordist for 50 years) and the output of other sensors for engineering data (and a microphone is a sensor, like any other, so as far as I am concerned accurate recording is just that whether of a microphone or any other type of vibration sensor).
I have -never- used an analogue recorder which was accurate, in as much as the output and input were indistinguishable. In the case of engineering data that meant that one had to be very careful, re-calibrating recorders daily and paying particular attention to the known shortcomings of the recording process in the interpretation of results, and for some things they were completely useless.
In the case of music recording all the inaccuracies of an analogue recorder other than speed stability are euphonic, so that whilst not accurate they do sound nice. The fact that they are not accurate is easily checked if using a tape recorder with off tape monitoring capability where the difference between microphone feed and off tape are clearly different.
Digital recording is IME nowadays "sufficiently accurate". An anti-aliasing filter is vital at the recording stage, and a reconstruction filter at playback, otherwise the hogwash about step sizes and so forth becomes true...
On the sort of music I have recorded I can not hear the difference between the microphone feed and the output of my ADC/DAC. Maybe on some sorts of music or non music sound I would be able to hear a difference, but up to now I can not.
My conclusion is that digital is much more accurate than analogue for recording/replay and for me so far transparent, i.e. the input and output are indistinguishable by me.
In the case of other recordings I can attest that digital recorders have allowed me and other researchers to discover fine details which analogue recorders are demonstrably incapable of.
As good ADC/DACs have proved to me that they are transparent to my ears it is a reasonable for me to assume that, since the Devialet has a well engineered ADC/DAC that it will be transparent to my ears.
In fact, since the way the Devialet works reduces the analogue stage to its very simple essence I could be convinced that a transparent ADC/DAC followed by a simple elegant analogue circuit is likely to be more transparent than a complex analogue circuit subject to all sorts of potential losses and interference.
RIAA correcting in the digital domain is a no-brainer if you have the signal in the digital domain, using an analogue circuit for it will be less accurate and very much more expensive.
So having explained where I am coming from I can also say I have auditioned the Devialet phono input at several stages of its evolution.
First I had a home demo unit in late 2010/early 2011. I was quite impressed by how quiet the phono stage was, but expected my Goldmund Ph2, which probably cost more than a Devialet, to be better.
I eventually bought a D-Premier, and after quite a lot of listening settled on using the MM input of the Devialet and my Ortofon T3000 SUT rather than the Goldmund phono stage.
I am still using the Devialet phono input. It sounds fantastic IMHO but its biggest gain over the Goldmund is how quiet it is.
I believe that the Devialet matches electronics many times its price. The reason for this is clever engineering IMHO. The very expensive analogue part of this amplifier is very simple, and most of the complexity is done in DSP at relatively low cost and complete transparency (IMO).
High quality analogue kit has to have many more super expensive components if it is to be any good, so I would expect to produce an analogue pre and power amp to match a Devialet in sound quality may well cost 10x more to manufacture.
Having written all that I know plenty of people who prefer a bit of euphony to transparency, so I would recommend a home demo with your own TT and spend a bit of time with the configurator optimising the input for your cartridge.
I have extensive experience of making both analogue and digital recordings of both music (as an amateur recordist for 50 years) and the output of other sensors for engineering data (and a microphone is a sensor, like any other, so as far as I am concerned accurate recording is just that whether of a microphone or any other type of vibration sensor).
I have -never- used an analogue recorder which was accurate, in as much as the output and input were indistinguishable. In the case of engineering data that meant that one had to be very careful, re-calibrating recorders daily and paying particular attention to the known shortcomings of the recording process in the interpretation of results, and for some things they were completely useless.
In the case of music recording all the inaccuracies of an analogue recorder other than speed stability are euphonic, so that whilst not accurate they do sound nice. The fact that they are not accurate is easily checked if using a tape recorder with off tape monitoring capability where the difference between microphone feed and off tape are clearly different.
Digital recording is IME nowadays "sufficiently accurate". An anti-aliasing filter is vital at the recording stage, and a reconstruction filter at playback, otherwise the hogwash about step sizes and so forth becomes true...
On the sort of music I have recorded I can not hear the difference between the microphone feed and the output of my ADC/DAC. Maybe on some sorts of music or non music sound I would be able to hear a difference, but up to now I can not.
My conclusion is that digital is much more accurate than analogue for recording/replay and for me so far transparent, i.e. the input and output are indistinguishable by me.
In the case of other recordings I can attest that digital recorders have allowed me and other researchers to discover fine details which analogue recorders are demonstrably incapable of.
As good ADC/DACs have proved to me that they are transparent to my ears it is a reasonable for me to assume that, since the Devialet has a well engineered ADC/DAC that it will be transparent to my ears.
In fact, since the way the Devialet works reduces the analogue stage to its very simple essence I could be convinced that a transparent ADC/DAC followed by a simple elegant analogue circuit is likely to be more transparent than a complex analogue circuit subject to all sorts of potential losses and interference.
RIAA correcting in the digital domain is a no-brainer if you have the signal in the digital domain, using an analogue circuit for it will be less accurate and very much more expensive.
So having explained where I am coming from I can also say I have auditioned the Devialet phono input at several stages of its evolution.
First I had a home demo unit in late 2010/early 2011. I was quite impressed by how quiet the phono stage was, but expected my Goldmund Ph2, which probably cost more than a Devialet, to be better.
I eventually bought a D-Premier, and after quite a lot of listening settled on using the MM input of the Devialet and my Ortofon T3000 SUT rather than the Goldmund phono stage.
I am still using the Devialet phono input. It sounds fantastic IMHO but its biggest gain over the Goldmund is how quiet it is.
I believe that the Devialet matches electronics many times its price. The reason for this is clever engineering IMHO. The very expensive analogue part of this amplifier is very simple, and most of the complexity is done in DSP at relatively low cost and complete transparency (IMO).
High quality analogue kit has to have many more super expensive components if it is to be any good, so I would expect to produce an analogue pre and power amp to match a Devialet in sound quality may well cost 10x more to manufacture.
Having written all that I know plenty of people who prefer a bit of euphony to transparency, so I would recommend a home demo with your own TT and spend a bit of time with the configurator optimising the input for your cartridge.
So, this thread is staying very interesting! Thanks to all the contributors.
To Microstrip:
I did listen to the integrated Dart. But it was only at a trade show, driving speakers that were unknown to me (Kudos). Sound was fine, but I was not impressed... Otherwise, it provides a compact and full functioning (apart for the digital...) component, still having a conventional approach.
I would definitely like to audition that with speakers such as the WA Sophia III.
To f1eng:
Very interesting post! So, it seems there's more than one satisfied user of the Devialet phon input.
Just to clarify:
I am not an ultra orthodox audiophile. For starters, I don't own a dedicated listening room: I would probably even dislike the idea to use one, since I enjoy company listening sessions with my wife and, hopefully not late in the future, with my little daughter.
Secondly, I would not be inclined to spend large money for very little improvements: first, I am no rich, and I also have other demanding hobbies (photography). being a parent in NY makes it tough...
So, why do I like vinyls then? wouldn't be easier just to stick with digital?
I've always found (both in my original Italian system and in my current NY setup) that, even if in an entry-level bracket, the vinyl experience was outperforming the digital one. I felt more music, I felt a more real sound. Due to some pleasant distortion? or some ear-candy equalization? don't know...
But that is how it is.
Also, I like the records as objects, I am jealous of my collection and I just love the ritual of having them spinning. Rather than jumping from song to song, artist to artist, I like to stick with the artist view of conceiving an album as a flow of music, to be enjoyed from side A to aide B.
That's how I like music, as an interactive path, and vinyl give that to me more than digital.
But, in the end, what counts if my pleasure, whatever is the technology behind. At trade shows, I was positively impressed by the demos by the Pure Music team for example...
To Microstrip:
I did listen to the integrated Dart. But it was only at a trade show, driving speakers that were unknown to me (Kudos). Sound was fine, but I was not impressed... Otherwise, it provides a compact and full functioning (apart for the digital...) component, still having a conventional approach.
I would definitely like to audition that with speakers such as the WA Sophia III.
To f1eng:
Very interesting post! So, it seems there's more than one satisfied user of the Devialet phon input.
Just to clarify:
I am not an ultra orthodox audiophile. For starters, I don't own a dedicated listening room: I would probably even dislike the idea to use one, since I enjoy company listening sessions with my wife and, hopefully not late in the future, with my little daughter.
Secondly, I would not be inclined to spend large money for very little improvements: first, I am no rich, and I also have other demanding hobbies (photography). being a parent in NY makes it tough...
So, why do I like vinyls then? wouldn't be easier just to stick with digital?
I've always found (both in my original Italian system and in my current NY setup) that, even if in an entry-level bracket, the vinyl experience was outperforming the digital one. I felt more music, I felt a more real sound. Due to some pleasant distortion? or some ear-candy equalization? don't know...
But that is how it is.
Also, I like the records as objects, I am jealous of my collection and I just love the ritual of having them spinning. Rather than jumping from song to song, artist to artist, I like to stick with the artist view of conceiving an album as a flow of music, to be enjoyed from side A to aide B.
That's how I like music, as an interactive path, and vinyl give that to me more than digital.
But, in the end, what counts if my pleasure, whatever is the technology behind. At trade shows, I was positively impressed by the demos by the Pure Music team for example...
to be clear; there are two completely different darTZeel integrateds.
there is the CTH-8550 which is a conventional integrated including an internal moving coil phono stage.
and there is the brand new LHC-208 "Danalog" streaming dac with integrated amplifier. and unless you happened to be at 2014 CES in January or at the Newport show this past June......you have not heard this one. and as much as I like the CTH-8550, to my ears this new 208 is better sounding (I've not heard them side by side.....so that is just my perception). it seems to have a bit of the magic of my 458's in it's dna.
so if you've only tried the 8550 then you have not heard what I'm talking about.
Mike,
I know you were referring to another integrated. Since Micro mentioned the Dart, I commented about my (unique) experience with that.
Jeff Dorgay enjoyed the CTH and I'd like to have the chance to listen to that with speakers I know better, but here in NYC that might be difficult.
I know you were referring to another integrated. Since Micro mentioned the Dart, I commented about my (unique) experience with that.
Jeff Dorgay enjoyed the CTH and I'd like to have the chance to listen to that with speakers I know better, but here in NYC that might be difficult.
I see nothing 'wrong' with digital.....and listen to it daily in a few different formats. it's good, to very very good, to really good. I'm listening to 2xdsd ripped vinyl right now.
that said....there is a very large difference between accurate and complete. and when I want my world rocked I'm choosing complete.....which is analog. vinyl or tape.
I respect that you have done recordings, and have your world view that you have. but I've been involved enough with pro audio guys and their hirez recordings to know that they cannot digitally copy my vinyl in a way that gets it all. and I have also seen where the right analog tape deck does get it all.
it was telling to watch the pro audio guys faces when we A/B'd the hirez digital rips with the direct feed of my turntable. a telling moment.
which does not in any way invalidate anyone's enjoyment of the Devialet phono stage.
One scenario that gets played out on this forum over and over is the guy that basically says, "I've got something at home that you don't have and can't afford and I can tell you it is better than what you have at home."
It is common and misleading. And when it gets repeated enough times it becomes fact to many.
With Devialet, I could just as easily say, "I'm listening through a 4-inch signal path, not the many feet of cabling that you have plus the combined signal-path lengths within your multiple components. There is no way you will experience the Devialet magic -- ever -- because of the loses inherent in your system model. Simplicity is the only real path to high fidelity."
That, of course, would become tiring quickly as well. I do not own a Devialet. I actually own fairly expensive, by comparison, separates. When I heard the newest Devialet in my system my world view on audio took a turn. My point is this: don't assume that the more expensive, more complex system is better. Just listen. And don't be shocked if you don't come away with a similar change in attitude.
But also, don't be surprised when the response you get from others damns your experience with faint praise, and in the process tries to "set the record right in the high end."
It is common and misleading. And when it gets repeated enough times it becomes fact to many.
With Devialet, I could just as easily say, "I'm listening through a 4-inch signal path, not the many feet of cabling that you have plus the combined signal-path lengths within your multiple components. There is no way you will experience the Devialet magic -- ever -- because of the loses inherent in your system model. Simplicity is the only real path to high fidelity."
That, of course, would become tiring quickly as well. I do not own a Devialet. I actually own fairly expensive, by comparison, separates. When I heard the newest Devialet in my system my world view on audio took a turn. My point is this: don't assume that the more expensive, more complex system is better. Just listen. And don't be shocked if you don't come away with a similar change in attitude.
But also, don't be surprised when the response you get from others damns your experience with faint praise, and in the process tries to "set the record right in the high end."
Well if by "complete" you mean with some euphonic colourations added, my experience would be in agreement with your opinion.
OTOH I have -never- heard audio or used for data recording a tape recorder that does not add something to the signal. So it is creating a bit of extra sound of its own, many people like this addition including, evidently, yourself.
They are incapable of recording correctly the microphone or other transducer. That is a demonstrable fact, despite what your pro-audio friends faces may look like
And tape recorders are -much- less compromised than record players.
Well if by "complete" you mean with some euphonic colourations added, my experience would be in agreement with your opinion.
OTOH I have -never- heard audio or used for data recording a tape recorder that does not add something to the signal. So it is creating a bit of extra sound of its own, many people like this addition including, evidently, yourself.
They are incapable of recording correctly the microphone or other transducer. That is a demonstrable fact, despite what your pro-audio friends faces may look like
I suppose it depends on how one defines 'correctly'.
I agree that analog recording, as well as vinyl mastering, both add something. however; they retain more of reality along with that something that they add. it's what digital does not retain of the source that makes the difference. and when I am listening to the vinyl or tape my body reacts to the music differently.
the analogy I like to use is a clean mirror broken into a million pieces and glued back together (digital), verses a 'complete' dirty mirror (analog). yes; the dirty mirror has a bit of dirt, but the rendition is real.
another analogy is processed food verses unprocessed food......it's hard to 'un-process' the food.....some of the value of the food gets lost.
Jeff,
most good tt's have the same advantage over digital......yes, some have more advantage. I'm not claiming any special viewpoint based on 'uber-level' gear.
you are the one who threw down the gauntlet with your raves about this product. and I have no doubt it is a very good sounding product.
since the Devialet digitizes sources there is no way to A/B the digital phono and compare it to an analog phono at any price. I do completely agree with your and other viewpoints about these new integrated amplifier and dacs (Devialet, darTZeel, Playback Designs) do bring high performance and small form factor along with reasonable price to the marketplace......and that is game changing. however; one still needs to dig into the choices and make sure that the total equation is right for them. one Achilles heel of any integrated is that the buyer is 'all-in' with any direction and limitation of the product. it serves potential buyers well to consider every viewpoint prior to purchase......particularly with an 'all-in' product.
Dear Mike,
with all due respect, fundamentally you are repeating web "knowledge" that is false IME.
As I wrote originally, those who believe there is something wrong with digital shouldn't read my post!
My experience is based on some pretty convincing (to me) first hand working knowledge, not me sitting back and listening to some music that was recorded in my absence, mixed in my absence, using techniques and hardware I have no knowledge or understanding of and concluding that the resulting sound is "real", "complete", what have you.
I know lots of enthusiasts who do this.
OTOH I -was- writing to answer the original post, based on my experience with recording and technology in general and the Devialet in particular which I did in my first post to this thread.
The Devialet is the most transparent amp I have auditioned. Maybe the fact that it as the lowest distortion, lowest output impedance amp with the most accurate RIAA correction I have ever heard influences the fact that I feel this way
with all due respect, fundamentally you are repeating web "knowledge" that is false IME.
As I wrote originally, those who believe there is something wrong with digital shouldn't read my post!
My experience is based on some pretty convincing (to me) first hand working knowledge, not me sitting back and listening to some music that was recorded in my absence, mixed in my absence, using techniques and hardware I have no knowledge or understanding of and concluding that the resulting sound is "real", "complete", what have you.
I know lots of enthusiasts who do this.
OTOH I -was- writing to answer the original post, based on my experience with recording and technology in general and the Devialet in particular which I did in my first post to this thread.
The Devialet is the most transparent amp I have auditioned. Maybe the fact that it as the lowest distortion, lowest output impedance amp with the most accurate RIAA correction I have ever heard influences the fact that I feel this way
I mean what goes in comes out. I know of no analogue method which is capable of doing this in 40+ years of careful recording.
I'm repeating nothing. I'm speaking only regarding my personal listening experience and observations (of pro audio guy's responses) in my personal system.
there is nothing 'wrong' with digital. only when people want to try and explain what is 'wrong' with analog I am compelled to respond. as you did here.....
leave any mention of what analog cannot do relative to digital out of your posts and I won't bother to comment. but make such strong statements and you should expect to need to defend them.
I always think of digital recordings as presented in "letterbox" form as opposed to full screen or even Cinerama of Analog. Now the majority of original analog recording transfered to digital lose less in the process. Only a few DDD recordings sound Analog to me and that is more the engineer than the shortcomings,but the talent needed to produce a comparable digital recording to a fine analog speaks for itself.
I have always remembered this quote from Steve Hoffman the mastering engineer....
"SH: Let's look at what a CD actually does. Take a piece of paper and draw a wavy line to represent the sound wave. Your CD samples each part of that wave. Instead of one wavy line, you're getting Morse-code -- dot-da-dot-dot-dot. Our human ears are used to hearing things in a certain way. Some of us who are familiar with live music in the concert hall would notice the lack of ambiance on certain CDs. Loss of ambient information becomes obvious. So do harshness, dryness, and other baddies, when we know what to listen for. Mastering engineers try many ways to circumvent that. There are multiple styles of analog-to-digital converters. Some are better with ambiance; some are better with other [things.] I like to add a little extra ambiance at the beginning so that when it slips through the cracks, there is still enough to sound lifelike. Certain types of tubes have a coloration that give an overabundance of ambient sound. "
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/Hoffman_TAS.htm
Another good read
http://www.endino.com/graphs/
I have always remembered this quote from Steve Hoffman the mastering engineer....
"SH: Let's look at what a CD actually does. Take a piece of paper and draw a wavy line to represent the sound wave. Your CD samples each part of that wave. Instead of one wavy line, you're getting Morse-code -- dot-da-dot-dot-dot. Our human ears are used to hearing things in a certain way. Some of us who are familiar with live music in the concert hall would notice the lack of ambiance on certain CDs. Loss of ambient information becomes obvious. So do harshness, dryness, and other baddies, when we know what to listen for. Mastering engineers try many ways to circumvent that. There are multiple styles of analog-to-digital converters. Some are better with ambiance; some are better with other [things.] I like to add a little extra ambiance at the beginning so that when it slips through the cracks, there is still enough to sound lifelike. Certain types of tubes have a coloration that give an overabundance of ambient sound. "
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/Hoffman_TAS.htm
Another good read
http://www.endino.com/graphs/
And Steve Hoffman was wrong. That view of digital is simplistic and wrong.
Now about the recordings themselves: Some ( a lot of) analog recordings lack ambiance too or what have you . it is a matter of recording and mastering. Let's leave that part off please . Old repeated cliches that bear not a resemblance to the facts.
If you like analog please enjoy it and in that case the Devialet is not for you. It is all digital, even the "analog"portion is digitized prior to amplification. It would be however educative and interesting to hear it one of these days, try to put prejudices aside... And since you have that thing about "noise" whatever it means to you ... The Devialet is the most "noise"free electronics I have yet heard.
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |